HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-19 Board of Survey Minutes February 19, 1981
' Meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Munici-
pal Building at 7:30 P . M.
Present were Chairman Cowell, Secretary Wood, Board Members
DeHart, Barker and Assistant Superintendent Bergeron .
Mrs. Wood read Notice of Public Hearing at 7:30 P .M. regard-
ing the approval , disapproval or modification of plans for the
extension of George Street and a new roadway , Heather Drive, to
South Street. The proposed subdivision will provide for eighteen
(18) new lata. Approximately fourteen people attended the hear-
ing . The developer was represented by Raymond Garcia from the
firm of Raymond Engineering and Peter Ogren from Hayes Engineering.
Chairman Cowell welcomed the people and stated that the de-
veloper' s representatives would make a presentation , questions
would then be asked by the Board and then the representatives
wo uld entertain questions from the citizens.
Mr . Garcia explained the proposal and indicated the site was
comprised of approximately 12 acres and that 18 new house lots
' would be created. The Engineering Division presented a list of
concerns (list appended herto) . The developer ' s engineer re-
viewed the items of concern indicating that many had been addressed
and that the remaining items would be worked out prior to approval.
Mr . Ogren explained the proposed modifications to the drain-
age system and indicated that they hydraulic calculations were not
in their final form but the preliminary indications were that the
retention area could be substantially reduced in size and depth
and that the piped system could be combined to reduce the number
of easements and also the possibility of erosion problems. The
control structure was also modified to help reduce the chances
of clogging by sticks and leaves.
Mr. Gardner presented the Board with a list of concerns as
prepared by the Conservation Commission (list appended hereto) .
Members of the Board asked general questions and the meeting
was later opened to questions from the citizens.
' Mr . Locke of 233 South Street asked how deep the water would
be in the retention basin and how long would it be there. Mr.
Ogren said that the exact calculations had not been completed
but believed that the maximum depth would be approximately two
feet and the storage of water would be approximately three hours
under an extreme storm conditions.
Mr. Locke was also concerned about the current drainage that '
runs down the proposed entrance to the new roadway. Mr. Ogren
indicated that s possible solution would be to install an addi-
tional catch basin at South Street allowing the water to discharge
into the new system.
Mr. Frederick of 85 Curtis Street wanted to know why the new
road had to be connected to George Street. Mr. Cowell explained
that it was the policy of the Board not to encourage long dead
end roadways and utility installations due to the fire protec-
tion and snow plowing operations problems that are created. The
new development will also be required to loop the water main to
the existing dead end on George Street that will improve the fire
protection and circulation of the water in the area.
Mr. Butt of 243 South Street questioned the possibility of
blasting and was assured that it would be done under the super-
vision of the Fire Department and that the contractor is required
to carry full liability insurance. ,
Mr. Butt also wanted to know what would happen if the new
homeowner decided to fill in the retention basin. Mr. Cowell in-
dicated that the retention basin will be protected by easements
and deed restrictions.
Mr . Locke asked if any filling would be required on his land .
Mr. Garcia explained that there was only one small area that re-
quired a 6-inch fill and that the developer would be getting in
touch with Mr. Locke and Mr. Rasetta about temporary construction
and slope easements.
As there were no further questions, Mrs. Wood moved, it was
seconded and voted to close the hearing at 8 :45 P .M.
e c�Res ectfully submitted ,
y�/�7—
ITEM NO. 2
February 19, 1981
OAK KNOLL Definitive Subdivision
Submittal Date 01-06-81 Last date to act 03-02-81 (Reg. Monday Mtg)
Items of Concern
1. The retaining wall indicated on the plan will require a com-
plete design by a Professional Engineer.
2 . Even with the retaining wall some kind of temporary easement
will be required on both the Rosetta and Locke property.
3. The wall will require a fence .
4. The drainage system design is being modified and the .Depart-
ment has not had an opportunity to review the calculations
and plan modifications but the following areas will be
addressed :
a. The size of the pipe into lot 18 will be calculated
based upon the watershed .
b. The water will not be allowed to pond on abutting
property any greater than the present condition would
produce.
C. The extreme velocities in the pipe and channel will re-
quire specific designs to insure that problemswillnot
ibe developed.
d. The proposed connection to the pipe in the Locke property
will have to be accomplished with standard manholes and
pipe.
e. Due to the cuts required to provide the proper sideslopes
there is a good chance that an under drain system may be
required in various locations to prevent weeping and
icing conditions in the winter. -
5. The water plan may require some minor modifications and the
actual number of hydrants will probably be reduced and the
proposed locations may change but this information will be
supplied prior to approval.
6. Problems with driveway slopes will have to be investigated
on a lot by lot. basis but in general slopes exceeding 10%
are not acceptable .
William R. Bergeron , P.E .
i
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
r 52 SANBORN STREET, ROOM 1
READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867
942-0500 x44
February 19, 1981
Town of Reading
Board of Survey
Mr. Douglas Cowell, Chairman
Re: Oak Knoll Subdivision
Final Rearing
Dear Members of the Board:
After inspection of the Plans and a recent site inspection with Mr.
Garrett Hollands of IEP, Inc. , consultant to Mr. Gillis, the Conservation
Commission has identified several potential areas of concern relative
to the above referenced proposal. The Commission wishes to offer the
following comments and questions in an effort to assist in developing
the most effective design with respect to the potential wetland impacts:
1. The Conservation Commission is likely to require a zero increase in
peak flow (100 year storm) for the proposed retention area outlet.
However, this standard must be considered in the context of the other
sub-basins feeding the wetland involved (portions of South St.) so
as not to inadvertently "match up" the times of concentration when
designing the retention area.
2. Alternative approaches should be considered for the design and location
of the retention area:
a. A southerly shift of the retention basin away from its present
encroachment into the wetland boundary would be desirable.
b. Would relief drain outlets of varying diameters and elevations
designed to accomodate lower intensity storms be appropriate to
utilize at the outlet point?
c. Is the size of the presently proposed retention area necessary?
If at all possible, efforts should be made to reduce the square
footage of the vegetative disturbance inthnhe area.
3. . Erosion and sedimentation control - In view of the very steep slopes
and relatively impermeable soils in this area, great importance should
be given to a phased plan of erosion and sedimentation control and
minimizing the removal of existing vegetation.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments. The Commission
offers any additional assistance the Board may require.
dJeh.t d & d. /. //MafewL Alowcee
Mr. Douglas Cowell page two February 19, 1981
Re7ectfully submitt d,
Carl E. Gardner, Jr.
Administrator